BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a leading cause of death and disease globally. Research suggests physical inactivity might be linked to community designs that discourage active living. A "smart growth" community contains features likely to promote active living (walkability, green space, mixed land use), but objective evidence on the potential benefits of smart growth communities is limited. PURPOSE: To assess whether living in a smart growth community was associated with increased neighborhood-centered leisure-time physical activity in children aged 8-14 years, compared to residing in a conventional community (i.e., one not designed according to smart growth principles). METHODS: Participants were recruited from a smart growth community, "The Preserve," located in Chino, California, and eight conventional communities within a 30-minute drive of The Preserve. The analytic sample included 147 children. During 2009-2010, each child carried an accelerometer and a GPS for 7 days to ascertain physical activity and location information. Negative binomial models were used to assess the association between residence in the smart growth community and physical activity. Analyses were conducted in 2012. RESULTS: Smart growth community residence was associated with a 46% increase in the proportion of neighborhood moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) as compared to conventional community residence. This analysis included neighborhood activity data collected during the school season and outside of school hours and home. Counterfactual simulations with model parameters suggested that smart growth community residence could add 10 minutes per day of neighborhood MVPA. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a smart growth community may increase local physical activity in children as compared to residence in conventionally designed communities.
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a leading cause of death and disease globally. Research suggests physical inactivity might be linked to community designs that discourage active living. A "smart growth" community contains features likely to promote active living (walkability, green space, mixed land use), but objective evidence on the potential benefits of smart growth communities is limited. PURPOSE: To assess whether living in a smart growth community was associated with increased neighborhood-centered leisure-time physical activity in children aged 8-14 years, compared to residing in a conventional community (i.e., one not designed according to smart growth principles). METHODS:Participants were recruited from a smart growth community, "The Preserve," located in Chino, California, and eight conventional communities within a 30-minute drive of The Preserve. The analytic sample included 147 children. During 2009-2010, each child carried an accelerometer and a GPS for 7 days to ascertain physical activity and location information. Negative binomial models were used to assess the association between residence in the smart growth community and physical activity. Analyses were conducted in 2012. RESULTS: Smart growth community residence was associated with a 46% increase in the proportion of neighborhood moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) as compared to conventional community residence. This analysis included neighborhood activity data collected during the school season and outside of school hours and home. Counterfactual simulations with model parameters suggested that smart growth community residence could add 10 minutes per day of neighborhood MVPA. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a smart growth community may increase local physical activity in children as compared to residence in conventionally designed communities.
Authors: Gillian A O'Reilly; Jimi Huh; Susan M Schembre; Eleanor B Tate; Mary Ann Pentz; Genevieve Dunton Journal: Appetite Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Nicolas M Oreskovic; Jonathan P Winickoff; James M Perrin; Alyssa I Robinson; Elizabeth Goodman Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Nicolas M Oreskovic; Elizabeth Goodman; Elyse R Park; Alyssa I Robinson; Jonathan P Winickoff Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Michelle C Turner; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Kim Anderson; David Balshaw; Yuxia Cui; Genevieve Dunton; Jane A Hoppin; Petros Koutrakis; Michael Jerrett Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Eun-Young Lee; Ajaypal Bains; Stephen Hunter; Alyssa Ament; Javier Brazo-Sayavera; Valerie Carson; Shawn Hakimi; Wendy Y Huang; Ian Janssen; Mikyung Lee; Heejun Lim; Diego Augusto Santos Silva; Mark S Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Adam Loveday; Lauren B Sherar; James P Sanders; Paul W Sanderson; Dale W Esliger Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 5.428